2. The applicant requests, in effect, that he be relieved of financial liability in the amount of $586.00 imposed by Report of Survey (ROS) S02-92, and that all moneys collected be refunded to him.
3. The applicant is a Sergeant First Class (E-7) in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard. In September 1991, he was assigned to the Military Academy Division of the State Area Command Headquarters with duty as the food services NCO (noncommissioned officer). The Military Academy operated only during periods when officer candidate training was conducted.
4. On Monday, 10 September 1991, during a routine visit to the Military Academy Dining Facility, personnel discovered that the large freezer used to store refrigerated food items had broken and all frozen food had spoiled causing a loss of $1,334.59. After disposing of the spoiled food, an ROS was initiated on 11 October 1991 and a survey officer appointed.
5. The ROS revealed: that the dining facility had requisitioned food much too far in advance of an anticipated Military Academy class; that the dining facility had requisitioned an amount of food greater than that authorized for the size of the population to be served; that a system at the Fort Allen, Puerto Rico electrical station which supplied two phase power had failed, causing the compressor in the dining facility freezer to overheat and burn out. Given that mechanical failure was the proximate cause of the loss, the survey officer recommended that no one be held financially liable.
6. The ROS appointing authority disagreed with the survey officer and, focusing on the accumulation of unauthorized foodstuffs, rationalized that if the items were not in the freezer, they could not have been lost through spoilage. He held the applicant jointly responsible with the food service officer for this occurrence and assessed him financial liability for $586.00 in losses.
7. In the processing of this case, the United States Army Logistics Integration Agency (USALIA) provided an opinion recommending that the applicant be relieved of financial liability. The USALIA cited irregularities with the survey process and the basic fact that mechanical failure was the proximate cause of the loss, not some action or omission by the applicant.
8. Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 735-5 states that the Government may impose a finding of pecuniary liability whenever negligence or willful misconduct is found to be the proximate cause of any loss, damage, or destruction of Government property. The total amount of pecuniary liability for soldiers will be established as the equivalent of 1 month's basic pay at the time of the loss, or the actual amount of the loss to the Government, whichever is the lesser amount.
9. The Consolidated Glossary for AR 735-5 defines simple negligence as the failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar circumstances. Gross negligence is defined as an extreme departure from the course of action expected of a reasonably prudent person, and accompanied by a reckless, deliberate, or wanton disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the act.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant may have violated proper procedures by requisitioning excess foodstuffs too far in advance of the required use date, but he did not show negligence in his handling of these items. The foodstuffs were spoiled because an electrical station failed and caused the freezer motor to burn out. The applicant had no control over this occurrence.
2. The USALIA advisory opinion recommends granting relief from financial liability.
3. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in the interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate to correct the applicants records as indicated below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by relieving the individual concerned of all financial liability imposed by ROS S02-92, and by refunding to him any moneys already collected.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506602C070209
He had been in the AGR program since May 1984 and, although he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y, supply specialist, this was his first assignment as a unit supply sergeant. His deteriorating physical condition severely hampered his ability to perform his duties as a supply sergeant. The ROS was improperly conducted and the survey officers conclusions were not always supported by facts.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9506542C070209
The applicant requests that he be relieved of financial liability in the amount of $1,480.61 (1 months pay) imposed by Report of Survey (ROS) T12-93, and that all moneys collected be refunded to him. By all accounts, the applicants unit was poorly led and the applicant was an incompetent supply sergeant. Upon completion of his investigation, the survey officer found that the applicants incompetence was the proximate cause of the losses and recommended that he and the unit commander be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997023679C070209
It further found that the applicant was not liable as he was not present at the time and it could not be determined whether the property was on hand when the former commander cut the lock on the supply room door and began distributing property in preparation for annual training. The ROS which found the applicant liable for $1,885.20 worth of missing property was improperly conducted and reached an inappropriate conclusion regarding the applicants financial liability. RECOMMENDATION: That...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 1997023679
The applicant states that at the time of the alleged loss of Government property, he was hospitalized and not present for duty. The applicant’s military records show that, at the time of the loss, he was a supply specialist in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard. The advisory opinion rendered by the National Guard Bureau recommended that the applicant be relieved of all financial liability.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509641C070209
The survey officer concluded that the losses were the result of a lack of timely inventory by the applicant, but recommended that he be relieved of liability while the incoming commander be held financially liable because of his having signed for the property without inventorying it. In the processing of this case, the United States Army Logistics Integration Agency (USALIA) provided an opinion recommending that the applicant be relieved of financial liability. For example, the incoming...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607075C070209
During the period 15 June to 22 July 1994, a 100 percent inventory of the applicants property was conducted pursuant to a change of primary hand receipt holders. The first of the surveys (ROS 02-94) recommended that the applicant not be held financially liable because of serious faults in maintaining property records, and various inaccuracies caused by the trading of inoperable items for new equipment without updating accountable records. The USALIA advisory opinion recommends granting...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9608842C070209
Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 735-5 states that the Government may impose a finding of pecuniary liability whenever negligence or willful misconduct is found to be the proximate cause of any loss, damage, or destruction of Government property for which a soldier has personal responsibility. Although the applicant may have been responsible from an operational standpoint of coordinating movement of platoon equipment from one area of the Reserve Center to another, this cannot be construed to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605969C070209
c. Likewise, the applicant was the primary hand receipt holder for the property on ROS #S-16C-17-95 and failed to properly account for it. His negligence in not properly accounting for the property or using proper supply procedures to issue the property was the proximate cause of its loss. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by: a. relieving the individual concerned of financial liability imposed by ROS #S-16C-14-95 in the amount of $1357.23; b....
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511255C070209
Although he may not have had direct responsibility for the unit property by way of formal hand receipt documents, he had supervisory responsibility over the junior, full-time AGR NCO who functioned as the supply sergeant; as a supervisor, he should have stepped-in to remedy or, at least surface, accountability problems. The applicants failure to properly discharge his supervisory responsibilities was not the proximate cause of the shortages in unit organizational property. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9507836C070209
It recommends that the applicant be relieved of financial liability and points out the extreme tardiness of the ROS and the apparent forgery of the applicants signatures on the OCIE hand receipt. Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 735-5 states that the Government may impose a finding of pecuniary liability whenever negligence or willful misconduct is found to be the proximate cause of any loss, damage, or destruction of Government property for which a soldier has personal responsibility. The...